Nice one.

So true.

It's funny, but the delegate-basket ball analogy is incomplete. Consider that a good chunk of the final score comes from judges (super-delegates) that will add points to both sides after the clock runs out. When you consider this, Clinton's statements make sense. They are meant to sway the judges and convince them that she deserves the victory.

Clinton's statements (read: excuses) are ridiculous. They are nitpicking incomplete statistics that do not have any real bearing on the race. The primary election race has almost nothing to do with the general election race and with all luck, this line of "reasoning" she's doing in her campaign will be the downfall of her political career.

Hello Patrick,

So are you saying that Clinton's arguments aren't aimed at influencing the super delegates? Because that's all I was saying in my comment. You seem to be jumping straight to whether her arguments should convince any of the super delegates. That's a separate issue, one that I'm not that interested in.

with all luck, this line of "reasoning" she's doing in her campaign will be the downfall of her political career.

As an issues voter, I don't understand this common support for Obama but hatred towards Clinton. You not only want her to lose the primary, but want her to lose her career as well? They are nearly identical on the issues. If you like what Obama wants to do for America, don't you want someone in the Senate (or other political position) who agrees with him and will vote to assist him?

Unless, of course, you're a Republican and want few, if any, Democrats in power.

I'm a Democrat and I don't want Hillary in power. She actually scares me a bit. I'm more of an issues voter and I'm definitely not voting for McCain (though I guess not voting for a Dem I don't like is sort of a vote for McCain), but with Hillary how sure can we be that because she says A that she'll do A and not B? At least McCain seems fairly straight.

So I can't just vote on issues, there's also the element of trust. I don't trust a word she says and while her in office wouldn't be the worst thing that could happen and probably would advance a few of her ideas I suspect that all it will do will mean that we'll see a Republican back in office in 4 years.

Hey Scott,

"with Hillary how sure can we be that because she says A that she'll do A and not B?"

We can't be sure about that with any politician, especially those with limited political histories.

I need some evidence for the reputations politicians have. Hilary is considered untrustworthy. Why? What leads people to that conclusion? McCain has a self-garnered reputation as a straight-talker. Is it true? What has he done to demonstrate this claim?

RE: Hillary, given what happened during the last four years of their administration (she insists that this is part of her "experience") it was ate up with lies and dirty pool. And it seems that on a number of occasions during this campaign she wants to claim only the good and none of the bad of her "time in the White House". Also I'd be lyin' if I didn't tell you that part of it's just my gut. I trust my gut. I guess I'm just more of an intuitive type than you.

"I guess I'm just more of an intuitive type than you." :)

But the rest, oooohhh, the rest. This distrust of Clinton stems from her husband's lies about his sexual discrepancies?!? I can't blame _any_ American for lying about sex considering our culture's schizophrenic views on the topic. It's okay to plaster sexuality all over the media and advertisement, and to look sexy, but don't you _dare_ have sexual contact outside of the norms prescribed by our puritan ancestors.

shesh.

My big mistrust issue comes from 1) Her outright and deliberate lies about Bosnia. Frankly, I don't care what happened to her in Bosnia. But she outright lied about it. Not misspoke. Not remembered fuzzy. Lied. 2) Her saying that she is ahead in the popular vote. BS. She's ahead in the popular vote if and only if you count Florida and Michigan (in which Obama wasn't even on the ballot) and totally discount Iowa, Nevada, Maine and Washington, simply because they were caucuses, rather than primaries. Don't give us this line about wanting to count all votes, then actively move to discount votes that don't go your own way.

Hello Toby,

I don't know the details about the Bosnia thing, but my guess is that her statements were exaggerations; to the point of lying, perhaps. An isolated incident isn't enough to make a judgment about long-term behavior. We've all had momentary lapses in good judgment.

Your second 'lie' is better characterized as standard political spin. You can't blame a dog for barking.

It's not about the Clinton sex thing so much. He cheated on his wife. Happens all the time. That doesn't excuse it. It's immoral, but doesn't disqualify him from office. But he lied to the people (I did not have sex with that womam.) and to his wife (though I'll bet you a gajillion dollars she knew) and as you said you can't blame a dog for barking. So that brings me to Whitewater and the other stains (heh) that are attached to them both. While they weren't convicted of any of it it goes to character or lack thereof. There is just to much shadiness that is attatched to the name for me to feel comfortable electing another one.

And then there are the "little white lies" she tells about her experience. She will say anything to get that job. Padding your resume is one thing when your on one level, but when your shooting for the Big Chair you need to be able to claim real experience or admit that you don't have it. You can't play both ways and she's trying to. Guh. I have to be able to trust the person I elect.

Say all you want about dogs and barking or tigers and stripes or whatever cliche about politicians you like, I'll grant you that most of them are true. That's why Obama's claims that he knew nada about Wright's wackiness don't bug me much. It's just that there's much more of a reputation surrounding her. Maybe you can ignore that. Maybe you don't see it or agree with it. That's cool. I don't get why some Dems don't care for Obama. I have blind spots about him I'm sure.

Any way, that's all I've got about that. It's a general lack of trust towards her. Who knows, maybe if she had dropped him like a sack of taters I'd feel differently, but she "stuck by him" and I'm willing to bet that her bid for presidency is about the only reason. I can't prove that, but it's there nonetheless.

Boy that was long.

It was long, but good.

"I don't get why some Dems don't care for Obama."

I don't either. I like both candidates very much and will be an enthusiastic supporter of which ever gets the final nomination.

Finally, with regards to whitewater, travelgate, filegate, and all the other BS charges a vehemently anti-Clinton congress tried to make stick: if a Republican-appointed special prosecutor had four years and an unlimited budget to uncover _any_ wrong doing by the Clintons couldn't find anything, do you really think there's _any_ legitimacy to the charges? It's more like politically-motivated character assassination that, sadly, seems to have worked to some extent.

"I don't know the details about the Bosnia thing, but my guess is that her statements were exaggerations; to the point of lying, perhaps. An isolated incident isn't enough to make a judgment about long-term behavior. We've all had momentary lapses in good judgment."

--

She didn't just say it once. She repeated the story 3-4 times in a 6 month period of campaigning, on tape and a year before, IN HER BOOK. During the last time on March 17th (the event that hung her) she repeated the lie TWICE even when asked to clarify if that's what she truly said. Then she turned around and said she simply "misspoke"?

Her "anti" position on NAFTA is dubious at best, with evidence out there that she actively pursued its passing.

Her "anti" position on the Columbian Free Trade deal is dubious, with her PRIMARY STRATEGIST actively lobbying for it. Her puppet, Howard Woodson, was lobbying for it, but at least had the insight to realize that he should try and hide it better before he started working for her. And the idea that Penn was going to meetings with the Columbians within HOURS of meetings with her and the campaign, cannot mean he was separating them entirely. Also consider the fact that he was WRITING HER POLICY for her. And that she never mentioned her negative position on the Columbia deal UNTIL she realized a part of her needed demographic (blue-collar) was AGAINST IT.

She has been blatantly waffling on the issue of wage-garnishing for her "mandatory" health care, which she stated to Russert directly would happen if people didn't choose or couldn't afford to pay for it.. While sidelining that question many times, she's turned around and criticized Obama on his mandatory requirement for CHILDREN only, using childish tactics like - "yeah, well HE has this too!"

Her whole strategy for her campaign is to criticize her "opponent" even if she herself is guilty or GUILTIER of the exact same thing. Remember her pile-on about his speech where he used a couple of lines from Deval Patrick? Less that two weeks later IN THE DEBATE, she outright plagerized not only Bill Clinton, but John Edwards and Ted Kennedy MULTIPLE times.

Her "shame on you" remark about his pamphlet in Ohio was absolutely ridiculous, considering just the day before, she released a terribly negative (and false) attack ad on him in Texas. She feigned superiority when she knew for certain that she had done the same thing or worse many times over.

Even for a ruthless politician, she's despicable. She's intentionally trying to destroy him before the Republicans can even get to him. She's writing their campaign attacks for them, and I have ABSOLUTELY no doubt that she's intentionally cooperating with them to incapacitate him for the general. Why else would she suck up to O'Reilly and Scaife (of the "vast right-wing conspiracy" and the leader of the Vince Foster "murder" allegations)?

Hello Patric,

Her "anti" position on NAFTA... Her "anti" position on the Columbian Free Trade deal is dubious

Really? Good! Finally a Democratic candidate that I can _fully_ support. I've been disturbed by the party's protectionist, anti-globalization rhetoric. Globalization is unstoppable. It's the inevitable consequence of wide-spread capitalism. Countries that try to isolate themselves will not only fail to do so, but handicap themselves wrt other countries. But I'm getting off topic...

[sarcasm]I'm shocked, shocked!, that a Democratic candidate would move to the left in a primary.[/sarcasm] When only the left is (supposed to be) voting, _of course_ a politician will move to the left. McCain did the same thing wrt the right. The rest that you mention is rather standard campaign tactics. I think Obama deserve credit for _not_ going negative, but I'm really not bothered by negative campaigning. It's as old as elections and will never go away.

Thanks for the clarification on the Bosnia statements. But it bothers me just about as much as Obama's early defense of Wright; which is to say, hardly at all. What _did_ bother me and carries more weight than not going negative is Obama's fraternization with homophobe Donnnie McClurkin in SC. This is one of the key reasons why I support Clinton over Obama.